Qualifying sites for oncology clinical trials.

Abstract

6619 Background: Current methods to assess trial sites for clinical trial participation are onerous, with unnecessary redundancies and “no-value” steps that impact clinical trial participation. This project assessed the impact of current sponsor and contract research organizations (CRO) methods to evaluate sites for trials. Methods: A survey was conducted with community- and academic-based trial sites. Samples of feasibility questionnaires (FQs) used by sponsors and CROs were also compiled. An ASCO sponsored multi-stakeholder meeting was held to identify strategies to more effectively assess trial sites. Results: 113 oncology practices (63 community, 50 academic) reported completing 11 FQs and 4 pre-study site visits (PSV) on average per month. On average, each FQ took 4 hours (528 hours/site and 59,664 hours for all respondents, annually) and each PSV took 10 hours (480 hours/site and 54,240 hours for all respondents, annually) to complete. Thus, the total staff hours required to complete site feasibility assessments was 113,904 annually. Respondents reported that content in both FQs (82%) and PSVs (91%) was redundant to information previously provided and FQs were redundant between different sponsors (86%). The 42 sample FQs had a median 45 questions (range 13 to 96). Respondents noted that sponsors/CROs provided insufficient study documentation to accurately complete FQs. It took 7 months on average from first contact to first patient enrolled. Respondents also provided feedback about standardizing and streamlining site qualification processes. Conclusions: The current methods of assessing site feasibility for clinical trials poses tremendous burden on site resources and is not sustainable. New methods are needed that standardize, harmonize, and streamline criteria and site assessments. Such changes will reduce burden and costs for all stakeholders, and will expedite and increase patient enrollment onto clinical trials.